Thank you for this.
I have to say, I find it insulting that the defense says that the senate should let the American people decide this case.
Voting for a president is not the same as deciding if that president obstructed justice and abused his powers.
Back in the day, we let the public decide cases that should have been decided by the courts--that was called lynching.
Citizens do not have the time and resources--or the government clearance--to hear all the information on this trial. That's why the senators are sworn in. You can't swear in almost 400 million people!.
Voting is one thing--it asks us to decide who we want to represent us.
The impeachment trial is another thing--it asks senators to decide of the president is guilty of abusing his powers.
If senators are unable to understand the difference, and wish to surrender their responsibility, authority, and power, then they should return to being citizens and let citizens who understand what it means to be a senator replace them.
48
@Nathan Very well stated. I've been shaking my head every time I hear the argument that 'let the people decide at the next election'. This has nothing to do with holding an elected official accounted for wrong doing affecting the security,viability and health of this country. I find it amazing that before each session, these senators state the Pledge of Allegiance. So awfully ironic and sad given their actions regarding this trial, or more accurately 'so-called' trial. Very sad for all of us.
13
I find it astonishing that the Trump defense team spent so much of their persuasive capital on now indefensible claims like "there was never any quid pro quo because this was all perfectly normal" when a copy of Bolton's book was sitting in the White House for review!
Any normal administration would have seen the high potential for leaks or embarrassing revelations like this, informed their own defense counsel, and structured their defense accordingly.
The fact that Trump's legal team and the Republican senators defending him appear to have been completely blindsided by the Bolton revelations is simply more proof of how incompetent and poorly-run the current administration is.
123
@Allan
A good point. But this sort of logic doesn't explain the dictatorial Trump or the techniques or motives of his henchmen.
Their approach, a known approach of dictators and despots, is to disregard reality itself....and when enough people go along with this disregard and swerving of the truth, that proves beneficial to a confusion that provides opportunities to politically take advantage of the ensuing discord and confusion.
People keep being amazed at Trump's seemingly self destructive bonehead maneuvers and constant lying, but in fact, these are being used to desensitize the American people.
Whether this sort of psychological manipulation is calculated or somehow inherent in the nature of these sorts, I don't know.
But it seems to be working, like a perverse magic trick before our very eyes.
14
@Allan
I believe it is more like they have the idea that no one can see them.
Also, if you are going to exploit all who serve and adore, this is just one more instance of easing the faithful under that bus. This is a jolly show for them, don't you see?
The more preposterous the lies, the more enjoyment from watching your minions jump around for you. And if they don't, well where is that pike anyway?
8
Poor suffering Donnie!! The rich kid everybody envies, but won't let him be part of the "in crowd". This, no doubt is how Trump views his entire life. Anyone telling the truth about who he is, what he does, how he acts musst be lying or a "traitor". Sooner or later this bubble will burst & he will splat on the ground like one of those oversize soap bubbles. In the mean time he & his pals work overtime on making sure that truth doesn't come out, but goes into storage......to be released later.
April 30th - Mueller Report is released
May 13th - John Durham tapped by Bill Barr to investigate what really happened in 2016 election
July 25th - Zelensky phone call with Trump
August 12th - Whistleblower complaint filed
Seems like 100 years ago..but it took less than 100 days from RUSSIA IMPEACHMENT TO UKRAINE IMPEACHMENT.
All designed to bury the evidence of the goings on between the DNC and Obama team with the 2016 election that involved the Ukraine (Alexandra Chalupa) and Russia (Steele Dossier).
I have to give the Democrats credit.
They had all this queued up and took no time at all to pull the trigger again..and again..and again..
Makes me curious about what's next in their playbook.
1
All the talking from all the lawyers avoided the reason he's been impeached. Publicly investigate my chief political rival and I'll release Congressionally approved funding so you can defend yourself against Russia. They all know he's guilty. All 50 senators know he's guilty. There is at least a glimmer of hope that sane Republicans will vote their conscience.
P.S. Is it just me or does Jay Sekulow look like a dark haired brother of Mike Pompeo?
1
I would used the word danger to teach my toddlers not to put their fingers in light sockets or put foreign objects in their mouths. The danger Sekulow should be referring to is the threat to global and national security, integrity of the 2020 elections and whatever wild hairs or whims his client may act upon that causes irreversible tragedy. Should Trump remain in office the Republicans will give him all of the power he seeks and he will exert to the detriment of the country.
I’m amused by these sycophants from the Christian Right like Jay Sekulow. It’s fitting that they find themselves defending with heart and soul the buffoonery of Donald Trump. Their creator/producer has a keen sense of humor.
Providence is once again exposing the moral vacuousness of history’s stock characters: Little divas taking the stage in their endless farce of arrogance and hypocrisy.
1
Watching Mr. Sekulow gave me a flashback to my early childhood and the TV series "Lost in Space". The robot on the show would excitedly move his arms up and down and repeat: 'Danger". In this light, Mr. Sekulow's histrionics can be viewed as darkly humorous. Also , pathetic.
1
No "suits" in this picture---just Moe and Curley.
Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow, part of Team Trump, one a family values Catholic who went forth and multiplied with 10 kids, the other a Jew For Jesus running a lucrative $20 million dollar a year conservative Christian 'non-profit.' Prairie the Lord and pass your wallet.
1
Mr. Bolton has to hope he won't have to testify so you'll have to buy his book.
Put them under oath and let them take the Fifth.
Every time I heard Jay Sekulow say "Danger! Danger! Danger!" I was reminded of the Robot from the 1960s tv-series _Lost In Space._
"Danger, Will Robinson, Danger," it would say, with those accordion arms and the semi-circular grasping claws flaying in the breeze.
If someone told _this_ bubble-headed booby to... just keep quiet... America would be a lot better off.
1
The left wing bias of the NYT is to the point that it must argue that every point brought by the defense is wrong, without merit, and/or laughable. That it must do this is testimony to how weak the case for impeachment actually is. Take the following for example:
"The day’s closing act was Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, who assured his audience that “all you need in this case is the Constitution and your common sense.” He then showed a quick montage of old video footage featuring Democratic lawmakers decrying the partisan nature of the Clinton impeachment and warning that it would devalue the coin of impeachment. “You were right!” he assured the Democrats, prompting laughter in the chamber."
This segment was actually devastating in showing the supreme hypocrisy and dishonesty of the house managers' case. It points out in bold relief what the Dems have been trying to do for three years. . .engaging in one of the phoniest endeavors ever in the history of American politics.
1
There is a reason Dershowitz ends up defending some of the most heinous and repugnant criminals in this age. And he’s definitely picked a heinous and repugnant man to defend here.
He seems not to be appalled at the sickening immorality that his chosen defendants display. Most likely because his own code is not based on what is good and right and respectful.
It seems that he can discard all that can be described as ethical if he gets some kind of recognition as part of one spectacle after another.
It’s no wonder that the hapless Republicans have desperately grasped onto his absurd and ridiculous defense of this President. Because these are people that are also absurd and ridiculous as they grovel at the feet of a clown and a madman.
We must rid ourselves of each and every one of them come this November.
1
"Mr. Sekulow kept asking people to put themselves in the president’s shoes."
Put myself in Trump's shoes.
Okay.
If I were Trump and innocent of the charges against me, I would want witnesses that would clear my name.
If I were Trump and innocent of the charges against me, I would want un-redacted documents, transcripts and recordings that would prove I was unjustly accused.
If I were Trump and innocent of the charges against me, I would want the American people and the world to see the great leader I am and applaud my actions.
So why block witnesses and evidence?
It must be because any testimony would be damning for Trump. Evidence would confirm his obstruction, witnesses expose Trump's lies.
There is no other explanation.
None.
The GOP's fealty to Trump over the Constitution is a betrayal of the American People.
We deserve better.
Vote Democratic this year.
Every election, every office, every seat.
A huge turnout is our best course of action.
Vote.
2
Antony: PART 2
Does stealing yet a second election seem possible?
When that the honest have objected, Graham has laughed.
Lies should be made of less obvious stuff:
Yet Trump’s lawyers say he did “nothing wrong”
And all these pals of Epstein are honourable men.
You all must see that, after the next election,
Donald hopes to be presented with a kingly crown,
If you believe there are exculpatory witnesses,
And documents, and facts. Why does Trump refuse?
Is it because Hannity says he is sent by god?
Because Sean is definitely not an honourable man.
I speak not to disprove of what the Donald spoke,
But here I am to speak what I do know.
You all did condemn him once, not without cause:
What cause withholds you then, to convict him?
O judgment! thou art fled to brutish beasts,
And Republicans have lost their reason. Bear with me;
The Constitution is in the toilet, there beside
Pompeo and Barr’s reputations
And we must pause till it come back to us.
BTW,when you look up ‘pencil neck geek’ in the dictionary there is a picture of Jay Sekulow
I just don't understand the blind loyalty of the GOP to a man (and I use that term loosely) that treats them like garbage, is incompetent, willfully ignorant of basic information, corrupt, an inveterate liar, and worse. They KNOW he is all of those things, yet they continue to back him.
Why?
Does he have blackmail material over the key players? Does Russia? Are they that scared of the MAGAmob? You would think they would be thrilled to have a legitimate chance to get rid of him for Pence.
I could see if impeachment and removal shifted things to the democrats, but they would get an actual conservative religious loon in Pence, not someone that just plays the part on TV.
One day we'll know the truth, probably too late to undo the damage this venal lowlife is doing to our country.
Trumps' lawyers could not possibly believe the ridiculous arguments they are making. Nobody in that room takes them seriously. Their arguments are designed as excuses for gutless Senators and bumper-sticker lies for the ignorant, angry Fox-brainwashed fools that Trump commands like an army. If this isn't Hitler redux, it is an attempt at it, and if not for a free press, Adam Schiff, and Nancy Pelosi, he might get away with it.
The way that trump has conducted himself his whole life, stiffing contractors, running a fake university, a fake charity, making fun of peoples looks and disabilities, molesting women and bragging about it on national TV, black balling people of color its very hard to think of him as a victim.
1
Apparently the WH/NSC vetting process approved Bolton's book so how can Trump argue that Bolton is lying?
To Sekulow I would say simpy, lies, lies, lies. That is the real danger.
1
The defense rests with the only argument they could say with a somewhat straight face: let the voters decide. Last time I read the Constitution I didn't see any footnotes on Impeachment* or on Supreme Court nominations*
*Not applicable in an Election year.
2
Do the presidents lawyers know how to word things that have a actually have a legal basis to them?
Saying how great he is is Bull Dung.
"Danger. Danger. Danger."
Apparently Sekulow was watching reruns of Lost in Space the night he wrote his skit.
8
"There's a cancer on the presidency." And it's name is John Bolton.
Sekulow has an impossible job. Attempting to paint your client as having the moral high ground when he has half century legacy of lying , cheating and blackmailing isn’t easy Add to that the fact that said client’s psychosocial development is arrested at a pre-adolescent level and you can almost ( I said almost) have sympathy for Mr. Sekulow.
10
“This should end now,” urged Mr. Cipollone, “as quickly as possible.”
The warning is clear: Allowing a lengthier process with witnesses and testimony will paint a clearer picture of the corruption that facilitated both the misdeed and the ensuing cover-up. Mitch McConnell and his tagalongs will suffer. A shadow will fall over the State of The Union speech.
Also clear is the invitation: Let's sweep this thing out of the way and get ready for the Super Bowl.
30
The GOP irony in not allowing witnesses is defending a charge of obstruction of justice with obstruction of justice.
54
Q: Who pays for the "defense" attorneys? I sorta assume that the taxpayers foot the bill for this charade...
1
The biggest advantage to being on this team would be that your clown car would be a lot less crowded than what is typically the case.
Take the whistleblower out of this and what you have is the president's scheme working. Zelensky goes on CNN to announce the investigation and trump brays at every opportunity about everybody is against him. Looking back on how long he played the Obama birth certifiate it's obvious this would have lasted right thru the election.So trump'scheme would have worked. Help from a foreign nation to affect the outcome of a US election. And we are being lead to believe the founding fathers would be ok with this.
1
If I were Trump and facing an election year I would truly want to exonerate myself and call for witnesses, Trump needs to put a little skin into the game
In their Jan. 27, 2020 NYT article titled “John Roberts Can Call Witnesses to Trump’s Trial. Will He?” - the authors - Neal K. Katyal, Joshua A. Geltzer and Mickey Edwards - stated that any of the managers could have handed in a request (with Chief Justice John Roberts) for a subpoena for John Bolton and others, and that (quoting) ” there is no Senate vote requirement whatsoever”.
Two things:
(1) This article appeared in the Opinion section of the NYT. Why was that? Is this interpretation of the rules of impeachment in dispute?
(2) Assuming the authors’interpretation hit the mark: What held back the managers to lodge a request for a subpoena for witnesses with Chief Justice?
Did I miss something? Was there a request? Did the Chief Justice quietly strangle it? What happened? Is Trump getting away with his obstruction? How can you have a trial without a proper quest for evidence and witnesses?
Just trying to make sense of this so-called trial.
1
“Danger. Danger. Danger." Smug old white guys, oiled up and ready for reality TV, just like Trump wanted.
I can't look at Trump's defense team without thinking about Hair Club for Men ads. And what's coming out of their heads is as phony as what's on top. It's impossible to take them seriously, much less believe them.
2
Trump defending lawyers did their thing just like their class of Attorney usually does. The Mob lawyer tries to put the judicial process on trial, put the witnesses on trial, put the prosecution on trial, and paints their client as the victim of the evil city, county, state, or nation. In my opinion, these guys and lady, needed clown make-up- or- to make up for the absence of clown paint, maybe just Rudy Giuliani.
2
Scene from a criminal trial before an all-Republican jury:
Judge: Is the State ready to call its next witness?
Prosecutor: Yes your Honor. The State calls John Doe who was an eyewitness to the alleged crime.
Jury Foreman: Excuse me your Honor. The jury has decided that they are not interested in hearing from this witness. Also, the jury does not believe that what the defendant is accused of is a crime.
Judge: Thank you. The witness is excused. The case is dismissed. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, thank you for your service. Court is adjourned.
1
Yeah, Nixon did it. Yeah, he tried to cover it up. Yeah, he obstructed justice. But we dont think that rose to an impeachable offense either.
The Trump impeachment defense would be laughed out of a real court. Jay Sekulow says Bolton's statements about Trump linking Ukraine aid to investigation of the Bidens are hearsay and Bolton is not credible. Are you kidding me? This from the same lawyer who routinely cites out of court statements by Trump, not particularly known for his honesty, as well as out of court statements by President Zelensky ,as his primary defense.
Then the argument that it doesn't matter what Bolton said because what Trump is alleged to have done are not impeachable offenses. Really? Then stop denying the allegations against him. In a real court you can't argue that a case should be dismissed without witnesses because the allegations aren't true. You do that and you lose no matter what else you claim.
Finally, Alan Dershowitz asking the Senators to determine that the Constitution means what Trump's lawyer says it means. Jurors don't decide the law; they are instructed on the law and apply it and don't accept the instructions from either party's lawyers. But we know what was really going on here: Dershowitz was not making an argument he actually believed (having previously made the opposite argument) - he was simply giving Republicans a talking point. At this point the Republicans in the Senate are a bigger disgrace than Trump himself.
2
When Alexander Hamilton wrote his Federalist Paper No. 65, he warned of the worst fears of the framers that a president would someday be corrupted by a foreign power. Hamilton urged that an educated, genteel body like the senate or upper house try articles of impeachment filed by the peoples’ House of Representatives.
The august body of the Senate would deal with the subject seriously and fairly. Of course, when the Constitution was ratified, Senators were chosen by their state legislatures, and that did not change until 1913 with the 17th Amendment.
The Senators in the current Impeachment Trial were asked to stand and were administered an oath by Chief Justice John Roberts: "Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god?"
Then, each Senator went to the desk and signed to confirm they had, indeed, taken the oath or affirmation.
Hamilton could not have imagined that a president investigated by the House in an impeachment inquiry would have the audacity to refuse to provide requested documents or witnesses. While Hamilton would have appreciated the solemnity of the presentation by the House Managers, he would never have expected that his revered Senate would collaborate in the presidential cover-up and would clown around, insulting the House Managers at every turn.
47
@sdw Hamilton was shot and killed by Burr. I suspect Hamilton knew perfectly well how crazy politics and politicians can be. The framers did their best. It's up to us to work to fix the problems of our age, using the foundation created by the framers but also relying on our own wisdom and strength. Most of all, people need to take their responsibilities as citizens seriously. And, vote.
16
@Patricia Maurice
Your comment about Hamilton’s assassination by Burr and the need to vote in elections does not alter the historic fact that years earlier, when Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist no. 65, he made sure the Constitution stressed the gravity of having a president who might behave like Donald Trump has behaved and failing to remove that President.
13
It seems to me that impeachment was included in the Constitution as a means of getting rid of presidents who put the constitution and our nation at substantial risk. Presidents can do that by breaking the law. Or, they can potentially do that without breaking any specific law. Trump's actions have put our constitution and our nation at significant risk. Hence, it was right to impeach him and he should be removed. All the arcane little legal arguments are ultimately meaningless. His lawyers, the Republican senators, and his supporters are losing sight of the key reason for impeachment. Whatever the exact wording used by the framers of the Constitution, it surely was meant to protect and defend the constitution of the United States of America and our national security and safety. The time has come to recognize a dangerous president and stop him before it's too late.
153
@Patricia Maurice You're asking for him to be removed because Democrats disagree with him on policy.
You're asking him to be removed because he asked his AG to investigate the 2016 election interference by Russia and Ukraine after Muller wasted $30m of our money to not investigate 2016 election interference.
Keep in mind that Barr had already announced the investigation and appointed Durham his point person well before this Zelensky call and the request of Zelensky was to work with his AG and us (US!!) to investigate the 2016 interference and the corruption alleged by Biden's public statement that he got the top prosecutor fired.
If that's impeachable..every President from here to eternity is going to be impeached.
The Democrats in the House have literally destroyed this nation with his bogus process.
If they thought he did something wrong, they could have Censured him.
Impeachment is a political assassination and history is not going to look favorably upon Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler or Democrats after this charade concludes...
@Patricia Maurice
King Don Jon did break a law by withholding the aid granted to Ukraine without consulting with Congress first.
7
@Erica Smythe. Being a traitor to one's country is sufficient grounds for impeachment.
Whatever fame and respect Alan Dershowitz amassed over his storied career has gone out the window with his preposterous espousal that presidential abuse of power is not an impeachable offense. Dershowitz enjoys providing hypothetical situations so I will throw out this one: The president is endowed with the authority to declassify top secret information. Let's say Trump, against the vigorous opposition of our intelligence agencies, declassified highly sensitive information that benefited our adversaries. That would be an abuse of power but according to Dershowitz abuse of power is unimpeachable. Dershowitz claims he is defending the Constitution, not Donald Trump. Please, Mr. Dershowitz, don't insult our intelligence and stop proclaiming Trump's attempted bribery and extortion of Zelensky, which is a clear abuse of power, is not subject to impeachment.
189
@nzierler
What is truly impeachable is that Trump attempted to use bribery and extortion for personal, political gain. And not for any purpose related to America's national or commercial interests.
As an additional offense, Trump's actions furthered the interests of an unfriendly rival power. If done deliberately this could constitute treason; another impeachable act.
13
@Philip Brown Spot on! Thanks for weighing in.
@nzierler
Alan Dershowitz has the strength of convictions of a door knob: it all depends which side he is on.
What is at stake is a Supreme Court seat. If President Trump is re-elected, the Democrats are petrified he will place another Supreme Court justice on the bench. They were outraged that he had the opportunity to put two on the bench and if he should place another the court will no longer lean left. This is really what it is all about. The Democrats will not say this publicly but they are discussing it privately. Why do you think so many voters selected Donald Trump? They wanted a more moderate and fair Supreme Court in which cases were judged according to the constitution.
2
@KMW
That has never once crossed my mind since news broke of the phone call. What really is at stake is whether checks and balances can actually work. Can a president get away with abusing the power of his office without so much as censure? If you'd feel just as comfortable had Clinton or Obama done such a thing, then we're truly sunk.
7
@KMW
Actually Clinton got 3 million more votes than Trump.
@KMW What a laughable comment after the Merrick Garland debacle. If the voters wanted a moderate and fair Supreme Court, he was the man. Centrist and fair.
2
Not to trivialize, but I assume someone has pointed out that “danger, danger, danger” was the mantra from the robot in the old TV series Lost in Space, as I recall.
Lost in Space, how appropriate for the Trump defense strategy.
21
Their client is lost in Space Force, after all.
The accurate use of language matters. Trump did not use the power of his office just for 'personal gain' - he used it to corrupt the electoral process. He was not 'seeking dirt' on the Bidens, he was asking Ukraine to give him a set up so that he could then manipulate minds about Joe Biden. Recently, the Democrats have started using the term 'fake investigation.' But even that is inaccurate. Trump does not want an 'investigation' - fake or not - he wants the appearance of an investigation to create the impression of wrongdoing. And worse: it scares off people from voting for Biden, even if they know he is honest, for fear that Trump will continue to make the electoral process toxic. Instead of innuendo, Trump needs to explain what this Biden corruption was about? Surely just making a lot of money off the fact that your father is the bigwig couldn't be what Trump wants to draw attention to. Because next thing we may get an accounting of the Trump family raking in mega millions solely because of the office held by Trump. We may even get to find out HOW they did it. Trump needs to tell us exactly WHY Biden should be investigated and why the Trump family has NOT been investigated.
19
Democrats want to remove President Trump not because he has done anything wrong but because they do not like his policies. The voters do not see it this way. They like that he has accomplished many of the things he promised and has made our country great. He is looking out for Americans and their lives.
This is a slippery slope in which we are heading down. Now all future presidents may find they will be impeached because the opposing political party does not like their policies. I fear for our democracy and country.
2
@KMW As someone who is not American, I feel fairly confident in saying that the US does not currently look "great".
20
@KMW -- Democrats do not want to remove Trump because of his policies. This is the kind of misstatement that has been made by Trump's defenders who want to hide the truth. This process has nothing to do with Democrats liking Trump's policies or not, but is to determine whether a U.S. president can use his power and influence to force a foreign entity to help him discredit his political opponents, and whether he can withhold much needed U.S. foreign aide dollars as leverage. Trump did this purely for his own advantage, and the House of Representatives found that this was a misuse of the power of his office.
28
@KMW
Pray, for what reason did the Republicans impeach Bill Clinton then?
And since that debacle, we managed to have two presidents for 16 years who were not impeached.
Your theory doesn't hold water.
First the Dems say the evidence is overwhelming !
But then they proclaim they need more witnesses and documents.
Which is it ?
They also claim that impeachment is very serious and they can’t go forward without partisan support.
Then they go forward with zero bi-partisan support.
Why the change of position here?
Then there was a claim that there was a quid quo pro, replaced by declarations of bribery and extortion.
Then they abandon that line and go with the nebulous abuse of power charge.
Why that change?
They issue subpoenas without a house vote, breaking the rules and then protest when the Whitehouse doesn’t comply and then frame that as obstruction.
Their celebratory identity politics huge tent of failed diversity has a disjointed field of candidates that frankly no one is excited by.
This is the inept gang that can’t shoot straight.
What will it take for them to gain any sense of how their optics are to those outside their rabid bubble ?
Perhaps they should rewatch Pat Cipollone’s closing argument clips of their rank hypocrisy and start from there.
4
@Norville T. Johnstone the evidence IS overwhelming, but the republican senators are covering their ears. Politically, it's much harder for them to avoid Bolton's account.
25
@Norville T. Johnstone The argument that the impeachment should be bi-partisan in order to be valid or meaningful is ridiculous.
It assumes that because no Republican has the guts to hold the President accountable, that the charges of impeachment are invalid.
It would be very easy to make this a bipartisan process if any Republican was willing to stand up for the truth and the rule of law.
12
@Comet
Actually it's not. That's why you need 2/3 of the Senate to remove a sitting President. That's nearly impossible to get without bipartisan support.
Please do attempt to say the Dems are motivated by truth and the rule of law. Their only motivation is to remove Trump from the election as they can't bear the fact that will lose to him twice. They are as hypocritical as the Republicans.
1
I've tried to think of a reason any of those Trump lawyers would take the odious job of defending this indefensible President. Then it hit me -- they see a chance to go down in history as lawyers who are famous for having argued and won a historic impeachment trial. And the can do it without even having to present a half-decent case, because the acquittal is already in the bag. Easy peasy.
17
“Danger, danger, danger”? The real danger is the license acquittal gives this president to use the presidency to further his own personal and political interests at the expense of our national security, the rule of law and the public good.
18
The Defense Team is weak because they have no narrative, just denials. And not being elected officials, they don't enjoy the constituent audience that we, the the voters are, because we have skin in the game. Besides, Defense members have their own dubious records, for example--Herschmann representing Trump in many lawsuits--trials and tribulations, and Ken Starr star of the Baylor scandal and firing for ignoring multiple sexual abuse charges after being so zealous against Bill Clinton's.
11
Cip's closing remarks repeated for the umpteenth time:
1) Don't overturn the 2016 election;
2) Don't tear up the ballots
...forgetting all the while that even with DJT gone, it will still be a Republican White House and Republican-controlled Senate; and the Electoral College tore up 3 million votes -- not the Democrats.
But then again, Cip was only doing his job: tell'm nothin' and take'm nowhere.
13
The continuous harassment of Trump and his presidency, and now his impeachment, is a diversionary tactic meant to distract our attention from what is really on trial here and everywhere else in the world, the old political structures themselves.
@Joe Gilkey
There's no evidence whatsoever that trump is being harassed. The press prints what he says and does, and he calls that harassment. He causes alarm even amongst people he's hired to be on his staff and when they say so publicly, he calls that harassment. He's not used to being held to account for his actions - he's always had enough money to bully and con his way out of trouble.
@Joe Gilkey: Harrassment? What Harrassment? When Trump resorts to the infantile practice of name-calling, just what do you call that?
Let's for the moment, separate any and all things to do with the impeachment.
Trump reminds me of my father and the spats he had with my mother; Dad could almost rival Trump, when it came to the impugning, and casting aspersions; but, there were plenty of times Mom's pushback was something he couldn't handle very well.
Unlike Trump, my dad was hardly a sociopath. But, like Trump, he could be a bully, who never answred to anything, because (in his case) being the primary breadwinner, billpayer, etc., have him a sense of entitlement, that made him "above it all."
And bullies who excell at dishing it out, not only can't take it; but, they wouldn't know a fair fight, if it knocked them on their keester(s).
What alarms me about this is that these lawyers CHOSE to represent Trump. These lawyers are treating this as if they are simply defending any random person (who has sufficient money) against charges of white collar crime. A typical defense lawyer in such a case does not, of course, care about truth or the actual innocence of his or her client. They throw up a smokescreen of misinformation in hopes of winning because, well, who cares? The rich client gets off. The unscrupulous lawyer gets rich. Winning was the whole point.
This isn’t just any white collar crime!! Morals and the truth DO matter some times.
9
The TV lawyers defending a reality show president acted just like TV lawyers defending a reality show president. I guess you get what you pay for. Alternative facts for someone who doesn't pay his legal bills.
13
When the trial started, there were 287 days until the election. Now, there are 280 days. By the time we get witnesses to testify, I believe there will be about 180 days until the election. Can we end the insanity now and dismiss these charges? I have read over and over again in this newspaper that the allegations against the Biden's are a conspiracy theory and "unsubstantiated". I have also heard repeatedly that it has been "debunked". If that's true then how is that what Trump did can hurt Joe Biden's election prospects?
2
@johnny Surely you jest. Trump's strategy has been to defame his opponents using the extensive right wing social media, radio and tv and radio complex. Also, he had media help from the Russians in 2016, and will probably have their help this year, since the his administration has done little to stop the election meddling.
3
@johnny
Well, think about Pizzagate.
@johnny
Repeat a lie often enough and people believe it. Fox for one, repeats the lies about the Bidens on a daily basis.
Of all the defense arguments, the most absurd is that this is an attempt to overthrow the results of an election. If that were true, no impeachment would ever be legitimate. How would it overturn the election? There would still be a GOP president, the tax cuts would still be in effect, regulations would still be rolled back, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would still be on the Supreme Court. The only thing that would change is that a president who failed to uphold his oath of office, who is possibly the most corrupt president in our history, would be removed from the position he failed to fill honorably.
If the outcome is what is predicted, then the defense is right: it is a fraud and a sham – perpetrated by you-know-who.
13
Yes, Mr.Sekulow, I do consider an unpublished manuscript which a few reporters have seen as evidence.This manuscript Is written by a Conservative Washington insider who has lots of credibility.This manuscript will be published as a serious and block buster book-you, Mr.Sekulow will look foolish for brushing it off lightly and more then that, the Republicans who have to defend their seats will have to answer to constituents who will be angry that the Senate ignored evidence.The general population can get confused by the intricacies of Impeachment,but they do understand trials and evidence and they will be skeptical of a “rigged” trial.Some Senators who have to face voters and refuse to ask for evidence will loose their seats-bad for them-good for us!
6
Why would an innocent man, and a jury interested in the truth, not want all the evidence out and all the witnesses to testify? Wouldn’t you if you were innocent?
13
A good summary of Day 7, Ms. Cottle. But, notwithstanding the offerings of the Day 7 closers, I think Republican Senators will be hanging their hats on the Alan Dershowitz peg jack-hammered into their concrete melons Monday night. There are at least three problems with the Dershowitz argument against impeachment.
The first, of course, is that his stated view that there must be “criminal-like behavior” for impeachment is not just a tiny minority view, it is flat wrong and even defies common sense; it’s right up there with a Peter Navarro opinion on economics. If we want more analysis on the legal side, just read the op-ed of Nikolas Bowie in the NYT the other day.
Second, Mr. Dershowitz is simply no longer believable. As a result of his history of flip-flopping and rolling rationalizations, he has exhausted whatever credibility he might once have had.
Finally, Mr. Dershowitz has hired on with the GOP mostly for the notoriety and his personal aggrandizement, much like the man for whom he now argues. He is in it for the stage he was allowed to occupy—and what greater stage might there be than the floor of the U.S. Senate?
In the end, the presentation of Alan Dershowitz to the Senate was little more than legal gibberish, but more ominously it was in derogation of our country. Regardless, and sadly, it appears Republican Senators will use the Dershowitz argument to rationalize their votes to acquit.
8
@Huge Grizzly
A long time ago I read a Dershowitz book that mentioned the Yiddish word "shandeh" and described it as bringing shame on your family or your people. As a Jew and as an American I believe he's done that to me.
No witnesses, no discussion, no truth ,but we get to keep the president. Just what the country does not need.
5
What a delicious irony:
John Bolton, who, as much as anyone outside of Dick Cheney and George Bush The Younger was responsible for our catastrophic invasion of Iraq - that caused nearly 1 million lives directly and indirectly, cost us more than a Trillion dollars, and gave rise to ISIS - may prove to be the person responsible for bringing down the worst President in US history.
A long shot, I realize, but one can dream of such a beautiful arc of justice.
9
That was a defense? It was a bunch if nonsense that jumped from hypocrisy, to smear to whine, to begging the Senate to not convict. The Trump and Republican donors that paid for these defense lawyers should ask for the return of their money.
9
Is there any legal reason why Bolton could not give a dramatic reading of excerpts from his forthcoming book, say over lunch in a meeting room in Congress? And could he take an oath as to its veracity at the end of said reading?
4
An excellent summary of the trumped-up defense of a venal and corrupt president who feels he can do anything he wants and then sneer at anyone who tries to hold him accountable. While it is unlikely enough Republicans will vote to turn him out of office, I am eager for witness testimony, especially Bolton's, as we can all hope the American public will turn out in unprecedented numbers to vote POTUS out of office in November, announcing with their votes, "You're fired!"
5
Sinema, Manchin and Jones vote to not allow witnesses.
Collins, Romney, Murkowski vote to allow witnesses.
53-47 (if my public school math is correct).
Game, set, match.
“Danger, Danger, Danger”. Are we lost in space? Sounds like the defense team is!
5
People do know that the Federalist Papers are NOT part of the Constitution, right?
3
@Tim Lynch
Right. The Constitution contains the impeachment process. People know that, don't they?
1
@Ann
Who knows. It is mindboggling that many people are so ignorant. And blind.
It is obvious why Trump's defense kept it short. Any attempt to rebut the evidence presented by the House team will keep front and forward how strong that evidence is. The whole point is to forget about all that and move on to acquittal. Bolton's bombshell has upset the apple cart but no way the defense was ever going to mention it. When potentially incriminating information about a defendant surfaces the defense lawyers will try every possible trick to keep it from being introduced at a trial. There really is no defense left other than admit what happened, claiming it is not a crime and thus information confirming what happened is irrelevant. So the Senate is now asked to approve corrupt acts of personal benefit to the President. What a wonderful precedent for future Presidents. They can now proceed to emulate Trump and claim innocence.
4
I'm being generous when I describe the closing arguments as tepid. Pat Cipollone in particular is a waste of breath. Irony is dead when Cipollone is running clip reels from the Clinton impeachment. Keep it to yourself Pat. We know who is corralling party members to prevent witnesses right now.
That's McConnell's argument. If Republicans just stick together no matter what, they have a better chance of maintaining a majority in 2020. Joni Ernst, Cory Gardner, and others are echoing this position claiming a prolonged trial hurts their electoral chances. Nothing about oaths or duty or constitution or precedent. Nope. Straight-up: What's the best way to maintain partisan power.
The unstated counter-argument of course is McConnell's plan completely backfires in the other direction. You don't think an expedited trial with no witnesses damages Republican candidates? Martha McSally is delusional if she thinks avoiding Bolton's testimony helps her chances in Arizona. Her statements to McConnell are clearly a career pitch for the job after she loses the Senate seat.
I hope Romney finds the votes. It'd be wonderfully refreshing to see Mitch McConnell's unbridled partisanship finally disabused.
26
“Danger, danger, danger”?
What is truly dangerous is the unconditional license acquittal gives Trump to use the presidency to further his personal and political interests at the expense of our national security, the integrity of our elections and any semblance of truth in government. Do Republicans really think he will stop here?
19
Hearing Sekulow up there saying that the leaks from the Bolton book are unverified, and at the same time dismissing witnesses that under oath could change this, is unbelievable.
33
It must be a surreal, and liberating, experience for a defense lawyer to walk into a courtroom knowing that the jury has already declared their intent to acquit his client.
30
Or, just as liberating in this case, to be fired.
1
I emailed both of my Republican senators, Roy Blunt and Josh Hawley, and asked that they support calling witnesses in President Trump's defense. The witnesses who can defend President Trump are those who were in the room with him: John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, and Mick Mulvaney. If President Trump is innocent, those who have first-hand knowledge should be happy to testify for him under oath.
35
@Mary L. Called both of my Georgia Senators - Perdue and Loffler - yesterday to do the same as well as subpoena documents. They're not answering the phone, so had to leave a message. Also emailed. I'm convinced my two right wing radicals have their minds made up. They're all in with Trump.
6
Get it done, Senator McConnell.
Testimony from Bolton, Pompeo, Mulvaney, Duffey from OMB, and McCusker from DOD is necessary to fill out the picture, and questioning from both republicans and democrats would be illuminating and informative.
Whether it is before the Senate, or directly to the American public in interviews, public forums, or in other direct statements, Bolton will describe what happened. And, eventually, Duffey's and McCusker's inside baseball stories on what happened will get out as well.
Get it done, Senator McConnell.
Don't hide the truth; do what's right and get it done.
26
@Ed
Or accept the plea of no contest and convict accordingly.
Thank you Michelle Cottle (and the NY Times) for doing the tremendous work of capturing each day's hearings and summarizing them. Even with listening to the speakers and hearing recaps, I value these articles and the links, and also appreciate what I learn from the readers' posts. I'm grateful for the education I'm receiving and my sense that Americans of great courage will get us through this crisis.
35
You go to trial with the defense team you can get, not the defense team that you want. The public defenders office must really be over extended...
19
Is Trump a duly elected president? He has tried these past 3 years to convince the public that he won the presidency fairly. In fact, he rarely misses a chance to reiterate this claim. But I do not consider him a duly elected president because we know he cheated and asked Putin to help him win. He is doing it again and the Republicans are OK with it. They want this mob boss to remain in office so they stay in power. This trial will likely end in favor of Trump because of the GOP Senate majority, their selfishness and greed for power and wealth. It is the worst of ironies that a mob boss like Trump gets to take our Democracy apart and sell it bit by bit to our foreign foes like Russia and North Korea. But we do not seem able to keep him from cheating again and the Republicans relish it.
63
@Paul Raffeld Thank you for this.
You said like it is -- something few people are inclined to do these days.
3
Patricia Maurice,
What the Democrats are trying to do is remove a duly elected president. They are trying to undo an election where 63 million people voted for President Trump who won the electoral college. If people are unhappy with the system, they should request a change in the constitution. I and millions of others who elected our president are very angry that the Democrats have even held this impeachment trial. They have spent millions of dollars and wasted hours in which could have been spent on the people’s business.
3
@KMW
As I understand the figures at least 2 million more people voted for HRC than DJT ( which was actually a bigger mistake). There is also clear evidence of foreign interference, along with extensive misfeasance in Trump's campaign team.
Under those conditions it is difficult to claim that Trump was "duly elected".
Trump's documented actions in office - including openly requesting foreign interference in the next election - would seem to meet the threshold for impeachment, many times over. The presentation of his "defence team" would not get 'runner-up' in a first grade debating competition.
62
@KMW
Um, well that IS what impeachment is. Yes,the House of Representatives impeached him. Yes,the Senate may vote to remove him. (Doubtful as it stands). And yes,he was "duly elected". One can't be impeached unless one is in office. And no, removing him from office won't "undo" the election. He would still be the 45th president, and, unfortunately,Pence, by being duly elected as the V.P. would become the 46th president. No election will have been undone.
54
@KMW
The whole point of writing the impeachment process was to be able to remove from office a duly elected President.
The framers of the constitution were very conscious about the process of undoing an election, yet they chose to make available to the other duly elected representatives the power to remove a president or other elected official.
In terms of logic this is a flawed argument. Impeachment is necessarily the removal of a duly elected official. The more relevant argument is to dispute the veracity of the charges. Those are much more difficult to dispute.
37
Let's see the Republican talking points. We shouldn't confirm a Supreme Court Justice in an Election Year. We shouldn't hold the president responsible for acting badly because it is an Election Year.
Let's shut down Congress in an Election Year.
83
@catlover
Yes,let's not confirm ANY more judges ,let's not repeal any more regulations. It is an election year.
22
The only clear danger is to the defense counsels’ careers. They must adhere to the rules of professional responsibility — a near constant compromise with their client.
13
Patrice Maurice,
There are a few Democratic politicians whose political careers are on the line if they do not vote a particular way in the impeachment trial. They may be looking for a new line of work in 2020. It is about the voters and they have the final say in their careers. Many feel this is a frivolous trial.
4
@KMW Many feel it is not a frivolous trial.
I, personally, swore to protect and defend the constitution and I do not take that oath as 'frivolous.' It's sad that there are Americans who think protecting the constitution is 'frivolous.' If you read the entire Mueller report (as I did), read every document made publicly available during the impeachment investigations, and watched every minute of the pre-impeachment investigations and impeachment trial, I cannot image how you would think it was 'frivolous.' You might believe acquittal is warranted (and I would respect that). But to think it is frivolous suggests to me that you haven't taken the responsibility to fully study all the testimony and documents. Have you?
86
@Patricia Maurice P.S. I meant that I read every publicly available page of the Mueller report, of course.
Did you?
6
@KMW
But those many are in an ever shrinking minority who are tiring of supporting President Trump, Senator McConnell and a party of self-serving, autocratic, dishonest thugs.
There was a Trump rally in Wildwood, New Jersey this evening and the people were wild with excitement. There were thousands inside the convention center and many thousands more outside watching on television screens. I comment about this because these people do not care about the impeachment trial of President Trump because they see it as political. They are well aware that our president is hated by the Democrats and liberals and their goal since his election has been to remove him from office. They know he will remain in office and should be re-elected. There are many millions more like these people who support our president and will once again give him their vote. They see this impeachment trial as a farce. Many Americans agree.
6
@KMW Elections are about people voting to elect the person they choose; to a large extent, any election is a popularity poll. Impeachment is about protecting and defending the constitution of the United States. Voters do not have to pledge to support and defend the constitution of the United States. Senators and congressmen do have to make that pledge. Our Founding Fathers realized that popularity polls are one thing but defending the constitution is something completely different. Impeachment wouldn't exist if elections alone could be relied upon to support and defend the constitution. Impeachment is needed precisely because of this difference... popularity versus preserving and defending the constitution.
93
@KMW
R.Nixon was a "duly elected" President. He won a landslide election in 1972 (520 EC votes, 49 states won, nearly 61% of the pop. vote, an 18 million-vote margin over G. McGovern). In August of 1974 he was rightly chased from office by a majority of senators, from both parties. He had broken the law to serve his own political needs and then participated in a cover-up, including obstruction of justice. The GOP defended him until there was no alternative to impeachment. Nixon resigned in disgrace..
Amazingly, if you leave aside his illegal bombing campaign in Cambodia, invention of the GOP's racist "southern strategy", and his general sleaziness, Nixon was a competent president with a number of useful accomplishments to his credit. Yet, when he began to damage the Constitution and endanger our democracy, the people, through their elected leaders, did the right thing.
Nixon even deserves some credit for resigning and sparing the country even more divisiveness.
Now, compare Nixon to Trump (modest EC margin, 3 million fewer votes than Clinton, assistance from Putin, racist rabble-rousing, admission of sexual assault etc.). The high crimes and misdemeanors for which Trump has been impeached are arguably more serious than Nixon's, yet he and the GOP are clearly ready to sacrifice the Constitution and our democracy to keep his pink behind out of jail.
Trump cares nothing for you or the American people. You have been fooled.
What on earth are you all thinking?
2
Right... but they are there at his rally to see a freak show....not a President that gives a damn about his Country. And he’s there to put on a hate fest and to whine like a toddler about the way he’s being treated. These people that attend his rallies are not the productive members of this society, and that is clearly obvious. And these people don’t represent the majority. Polls routinely show the majority wants him removed. And if he survives removal by Congress, the majority will have their say in November and he will end up in prison.
2
In the only portion of today's offering this reader could bear to watch Mr. Sekulow repeated returned to begging his listeners to put themselves in Mr Trump's shoes; a desperate tactic none but the guilty guilty guilty ever resort to.
69
@Leigh
trump has perfected being the victim even as he bullies everyone and everything. Poor guy, he made himself king but no one understands his pain. A Pity.
1
This is nothing more than a sham trial. Unfortunately these Republicans cannot get beyond their fealty to their leader. The have place the country and our Constitution on the backburner, and it will remain that way for as long as Trump remains in office.
If we want change, our only chance now is election day this November. Best we who want to replace Trump focus our energies there.
44
I would like to believe that. However, I don't think that it will be a fair election. Trump achieved what he wanted: raise doubts about Biden. He will be acquitted by Shameless Republicans. Then, he will be right back at cheating on the next election. This time too, Russians will interfere. It's sad but I am afraid, this con man will be re-elected. We don't live in a Democratic country anymore.